Tell Me :
Talk
HA HA!
I know Chicago fans are very rude. Downright disgusting. I despise the Bears. Them having that absolute waste named Jay Cutler is excellent - I hope they keep him so their futility continues.
No one tops Atlanta though. When the Super Bowl 47 in 2013 was looming and the SF/Atlanta game was pending people in New Orleans had a bit of a quandary -
that Atlanta could show up and possibly win the Super Bowl in the home of the Saints was beyond criminal. It was probably the first time in Saints history that Saints fans actually cheered for San Francisco. However, had Atlanta won, Atlanta fans would stay out of New Orleans en masse because they don't like to eat good food. They'd all be at Applebees and Outback and Ruby Tuesdays and Olive Garden on the Westbank or out in Metairie...
Your Panthers gave us a game for sure. All credit to them. Tough mission to win at Century Link. Russell Wilson was awesome. 8 for 8 on 3rd down passing plays in the 2nd half. There's a chance I may go to NFC Championship. I had an issue with some of the staff at the game. & I was totally in the right. A doozy of a letter went out to customer service this morning. In short, they threatened to throw me out for standing & cheering for team during pregame intros. Also, implied I was drunk. I hadn't had a drop of alcohol. The other people in the row were dumbfounded about how I was treated. The story is longer but you get the drift. I used the L word (lawyer) in letter this morning. That usually gets their attention in regards to the American Disabilities Act. We shall see. I'm gonna do a couch potato special today & recover. Whilst I can't root for Dallas & keep my soul, kind of hope they win. Revenge factor!
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
+1
A nice roasted bird is good this time of year if you ask me. Should be a good game for the championship in Seattle. I don't know why they don't have the New England game fist since they are an east coast team but yes 3:00 PM ET start for Seahawks/Packers and 6:30 PM ET for Patriots/???. Pulling for Colts on that one.
That's like calling the Patriots cheaters. (:>]
I disagree with it probably being Seattle, and I'm saying that as someone rooting for Seattle next week. The Packers have been great this whole season, and not that I think it'll be a blowout, but I think the Seahawks have to play really hard to get the win next week. I'm certainly hoping they do, but Wilson's been rather inconsistent this season (at least not the reason for most wins), Lynch's back is basically paper machete at this point. To me, Seattle this year has been very good, but are at this point very beaten down. They seem tired to me, whereas Green Bay has been getting better or just stayed consistently great all season.
I'm pulling for a Seattle win next week, but I think for it to happen Seattle has to come in healthy and ready to fight. Cause Green Bay has been the team to beat this year.
I too would say its safe to say the Pats will probably win next week. I think the Colts will put up a decent match though. It'll be the ultimate test of how far Luck can push this team.
As the Packers fan living in Wisconsin I have to say the same for Seattle that you just said about the Packers. Will come down to who doesn't make mistakes I think. Both teams finished the season on the upswing and I think the winner will win the Superbowl. I give the Colts a fair chance to take down New England after watching the Ravens take 14 point leads a couple of times during that game. A few mistakes got them behind and forced them to press which was not what they do well. It's going to be some good football (American style) next week no matter what.
The rules state that it is not an incomplete pass if the receiver makes a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball with 2 feet on the ground.
That's the issue there. They say that the receiver did not make a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball and getting two feet down.
I don't agree. He went to stretch the ball out towards the goal line. That,right there,should have been the "football move common to the game".
Here's their official explanation :
QUOTE " That ruling, although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football through the entire process of the catch, So, in our judgment, he maintained possession, but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. "
" So, we deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as the ball hits the ground, which would make that incomplete. Although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches. " END QUOTE
So,they admit that the receiver was possessing the football,eveyone knows that he had at least 2 feet down while doing so BUT,they won't admit that he made " another act common to the game " . Yet,they describe him reaching with the ball by the end of their description.
How is reaching for the end zone with the ball not an " act common to the game " ??????????
By the way,they would have had a very good chance to score a touchdown with FOUR chances from 1 foot ( roughly a third of a meter ) away. Much better chances than Detroit would have had during the situation in the previous game .... with the missed illegal hands to the face penalty on Detroit not withstanding.
they are saying falling down doesn't constitute a football move and the ball came loose when it hit the ground during his only football move, reaching it out to get a TD.
i think it was after he reached but before he was down and thats the issue. the ball came loose during his football move
Yes I saw the move toward the goal with the ball, you might be right on this one. The effort he made to retain possession after the ball got loose was also great. I'm now thoroughly unconvinced about it.
The "if he had reached out further" part is particularly troubling. How much further does he have to reach except to the goal line?
But, if he is reaching during the process of the catch/fall it seems to be nullified since the process wasn't complete.
peace
thats what they are saying. by the time dez appeared to have control of the ball he was reaching out, which was his football move and part of the catch process. the ball hit the ground and popped up before he was down so the catch process which was also in this case his football move were never completed
duke had a season high 7 offensive fouls. come on now who can actually commit 7 offensive fouls. so about 1/3 of dukes fouls were offensive. there were even fans of other teams posting on espn's forums saying they hate duke but nc states defense appears to be just falling down and hoping they call an offensive foul. of course there were the people also saying between duke and louisville guards, wake forrests center and nc states entire team the ACC has to lead the country in flopping.
also an issue i've seen all year in pretty much every college bball i've watched this year. shorter player gets a rebound over a taller player most of the time they let it go. taller player gets a rebound over a shorter player they always call it over the back. they called over the back 3 times on duke for this when it wasn't and once on nc state when it wasn't. add to that dukes "goaltend" on a block. once a defensive player contacts the ball on a shot the ball is considered blocked and loose. okafor blocked a shot that still traveled towards the basket because he barely touched the ball. after that jefferson touched the ball and they called goaltend which is clearly wasn't
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-12 12:12 by keefriffhard4life.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 11, 2015 19:29
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
More Hot RocksQuote
nellcote'71
As long as Dallas goes down i don't care what happens.
Agree. Why they are called Americas team is beyond me. I don't know of anybody that likes Dallas.
For some reason people that live in north Louisiana are Cowgirls fans. So that means:
1. north Louisiana became Texas and no one told Louisiana
2. people that live in north Louisiana are pathetic
3. people that live in north Louisiana are pathetic
4. north Louisiana is boring anyway so it makes sense they like the Cowgirls
Can I include the Chicago but holes? those folks are really a mob !
HA HA!
I know Chicago fans are very rude. Downright disgusting. I despise the Bears. Them having that absolute waste named Jay Cutler is excellent - I hope they keep him so their futility continues.
No one tops Atlanta though. When the Super Bowl 47 in 2013 was looming and the SF/Atlanta game was pending people in New Orleans had a bit of a quandary -
that Atlanta could show up and possibly win the Super Bowl in the home of the Saints was beyond criminal. It was probably the first time in Saints history that Saints fans actually cheered for San Francisco. However, had Atlanta won, Atlanta fans would stay out of New Orleans en masse because they don't like to eat good food. They'd all be at Applebees and Outback and Ruby Tuesdays and Olive Garden on the Westbank or out in Metairie...
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: January 11, 2015 20:35
Quote
Chris FountainQuote
crholmstrom
The game was about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. My ears are still ringing. Doubleheader today nice way to recover. Waiting for next Sunday...
Passion for game was incredible. Carolina is a fiesty team that deserves credit!!
Your Panthers gave us a game for sure. All credit to them. Tough mission to win at Century Link. Russell Wilson was awesome. 8 for 8 on 3rd down passing plays in the 2nd half. There's a chance I may go to NFC Championship. I had an issue with some of the staff at the game. & I was totally in the right. A doozy of a letter went out to customer service this morning. In short, they threatened to throw me out for standing & cheering for team during pregame intros. Also, implied I was drunk. I hadn't had a drop of alcohol. The other people in the row were dumbfounded about how I was treated. The story is longer but you get the drift. I used the L word (lawyer) in letter this morning. That usually gets their attention in regards to the American Disabilities Act. We shall see. I'm gonna do a couch potato special today & recover. Whilst I can't root for Dallas & keep my soul, kind of hope they win. Revenge factor!
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
ChefGuevara
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:01
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
DaveG
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:15
Good riddance Cowboys, the self-proclaimed "America's Team". Actually, they are, throughout the greater Dallas Fort-Worth area.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:18
Quote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:23
the football gods just got even with dallas
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
DaveG
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:25
Quote
keefriffhard4life
the football gods just got even with dallas
+1
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
DGA35
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:26
Tough break for the Cowboys but the right call was made (unlike last week)! Lions fans are probably happy, even though the Packers won.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: January 11, 2015 23:47
We are ready for some fondue up here. The cheeseheads are going to find tickets a little tougher to get this time. Should be a good match up (Seattle D vs GB O). Rumor is that it will be a noon start which is unusual up here. Usually the games start at 1:00 or 1:30. We will have to get more serious about the coffee for a Sunday!
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 12, 2015 01:43
Quote
crholmstrom
We are ready for some fondue up here. The cheeseheads are going to find tickets a little tougher to get this time. Should be a good match up (Seattle D vs GB O). Rumor is that it will be a noon start which is unusual up here. Usually the games start at 1:00 or 1:30. We will have to get more serious about the coffee for a Sunday!
A nice roasted bird is good this time of year if you ask me. Should be a good game for the championship in Seattle. I don't know why they don't have the New England game fist since they are an east coast team but yes 3:00 PM ET start for Seahawks/Packers and 6:30 PM ET for Patriots/???. Pulling for Colts on that one.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
dmay
()
Date: January 12, 2015 01:48
Hey Slew, where y'all get off callin' the Ravens thugs? Dem's fightin' words where I come from, dude. :-)
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 12, 2015 01:55
Quote
dmay
Hey Slew, where y'all get off callin' the Ravens thugs? Dem's fightin' words where I come from, dude. :-)
That's like calling the Patriots cheaters. (:>]
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: January 12, 2015 02:00
The Wolfpack Nation celebrates an ass kicking on Duke. They really needed it.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 12, 2015 02:37
3-4 on my picks for this weekend. Pretty good! Denver SUCKS! I knew they'd choke.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 12, 2015 02:56
Picked all four games correct. Denver stumbled going into playoffs so figured Colts to win. Looking forward to some great games next Sunday.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 12, 2015 03:00
Quote
Chris Fountain
The Wolfpack Nation celebrates an ass kicking on Duke. They really needed it.[/quote
I figured Duke was in trouble when they called a goaltend that wasn't and kept saying everything Duke did was an offensive foul
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: January 12, 2015 03:51
It's probably safe to say New England will beat Indy. Green Bay vs Seattle... I dunno. Probably Seattle. It would be convenient to say it depends on Rodgers' health but that might not matter.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
crholmstrom
()
Date: January 12, 2015 03:59
Maybe time for Peyton Manning to get serious about selling pizza!
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: January 12, 2015 04:08
Quote
GasLightStreet
It's probably safe to say New England will beat Indy. Green Bay vs Seattle... I dunno. Probably Seattle. It would be convenient to say it depends on Rodgers' health but that might not matter.
I disagree with it probably being Seattle, and I'm saying that as someone rooting for Seattle next week. The Packers have been great this whole season, and not that I think it'll be a blowout, but I think the Seahawks have to play really hard to get the win next week. I'm certainly hoping they do, but Wilson's been rather inconsistent this season (at least not the reason for most wins), Lynch's back is basically paper machete at this point. To me, Seattle this year has been very good, but are at this point very beaten down. They seem tired to me, whereas Green Bay has been getting better or just stayed consistently great all season.
I'm pulling for a Seattle win next week, but I think for it to happen Seattle has to come in healthy and ready to fight. Cause Green Bay has been the team to beat this year.
I too would say its safe to say the Pats will probably win next week. I think the Colts will put up a decent match though. It'll be the ultimate test of how far Luck can push this team.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
mighty stork
()
Date: January 12, 2015 05:00
Quote
RollingFreakQuote
GasLightStreet
It's probably safe to say New England will beat Indy. Green Bay vs Seattle... I dunno. Probably Seattle. It would be convenient to say it depends on Rodgers' health but that might not matter.
I disagree with it probably being Seattle, and I'm saying that as someone rooting for Seattle next week. The Packers have been great this whole season, and not that I think it'll be a blowout, but I think the Seahawks have to play really hard to get the win next week. I'm certainly hoping they do, but Wilson's been rather inconsistent this season (at least not the reason for most wins), Lynch's back is basically paper machete at this point. To me, Seattle this year has been very good, but are at this point very beaten down. They seem tired to me, whereas Green Bay has been getting better or just stayed consistently great all season.
I'm pulling for a Seattle win next week, but I think for it to happen Seattle has to come in healthy and ready to fight. Cause Green Bay has been the team to beat this year.
I too would say its safe to say the Pats will probably win next week. I think the Colts will put up a decent match though. It'll be the ultimate test of how far Luck can push this team.
As the Packers fan living in Wisconsin I have to say the same for Seattle that you just said about the Packers. Will come down to who doesn't make mistakes I think. Both teams finished the season on the upswing and I think the winner will win the Superbowl. I give the Colts a fair chance to take down New England after watching the Ravens take 14 point leads a couple of times during that game. A few mistakes got them behind and forced them to press which was not what they do well. It's going to be some good football (American style) next week no matter what.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
RollingFreak
()
Date: January 12, 2015 05:39
Absolutely. And maybe we're both being too hard on the teams we're rooting for lol!
Either way, I've already told people that I'd literally be happy with any Super Bowl of this foursome. They have all had great seasons and I'm hoping that no matter who plays these next 3 games should all be very interesting. Great playoff season.
Either way, I've already told people that I'd literally be happy with any Super Bowl of this foursome. They have all had great seasons and I'm hoping that no matter who plays these next 3 games should all be very interesting. Great playoff season.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: January 12, 2015 06:23
Quote
NaturalustQuote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
The rules state that it is not an incomplete pass if the receiver makes a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball with 2 feet on the ground.
That's the issue there. They say that the receiver did not make a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball and getting two feet down.
I don't agree. He went to stretch the ball out towards the goal line. That,right there,should have been the "football move common to the game".
Here's their official explanation :
QUOTE " That ruling, although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football through the entire process of the catch, So, in our judgment, he maintained possession, but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. "
" So, we deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as the ball hits the ground, which would make that incomplete. Although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches. " END QUOTE
So,they admit that the receiver was possessing the football,eveyone knows that he had at least 2 feet down while doing so BUT,they won't admit that he made " another act common to the game " . Yet,they describe him reaching with the ball by the end of their description.
How is reaching for the end zone with the ball not an " act common to the game " ??????????
By the way,they would have had a very good chance to score a touchdown with FOUR chances from 1 foot ( roughly a third of a meter ) away. Much better chances than Detroit would have had during the situation in the previous game .... with the missed illegal hands to the face penalty on Detroit not withstanding.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 12, 2015 06:27
Quote
Winning Ugly VXIIQuote
NaturalustQuote
ChefGuevara
Did Dallas just got stolen a TD? That sure looked like a nice catch.
I think the rules and the replay are pretty clear, the ground can cause an incomplete pass, probably a good call, but certainly a fine line. Great effort by the receiver though.
It wouldn't have been a TD anyway since the ball touched on the one foot line.
peace
The rules state that it is not an incomplete pass if the receiver makes a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball with 2 feet on the ground.
That's the issue there. They say that the receiver did not make a "football move common to the game" after gaining possession of the ball and getting two feet down.
I don't agree. He went to stretch the ball out towards the goal line. That,right there,should have been the "football move common to the game".
Here's their official explanation :
QUOTE " That ruling, although the receiver is possessing the football, he must maintain possession of that football through the entire process of the catch, So, in our judgment, he maintained possession, but continued to fall and never had another act common to the game. "
" So, we deemed that by our judgment to be the full process of the catch and at the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as the ball hits the ground, which would make that incomplete. Although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches. " END QUOTE
So,they admit that the receiver was possessing the football,eveyone knows that he had at least 2 feet down while doing so BUT,they won't admit that he made " another act common to the game " . Yet,they describe him reaching with the ball by the end of their description.
How is reaching for the end zone with the ball not an " act common to the game " ??????????
By the way,they would have had a very good chance to score a touchdown with FOUR chances from 1 foot ( roughly a third of a meter ) away. Much better chances than Detroit would have had during the situation in the previous game .... with the missed illegal hands to the face penalty on Detroit not withstanding.
they are saying falling down doesn't constitute a football move and the ball came loose when it hit the ground during his only football move, reaching it out to get a TD.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: January 12, 2015 06:36
Sure,falling down doesn't constitute a football move but,like you say,the football move was reaching the ball out.
I guess where we disagree is that I believe that the ball hit the ground AFTER he reached it out. In other words,a still shot should show him reaching the ball out in the air a fraction of a second BEFORE the ball hit the ground.
I guess where we disagree is that I believe that the ball hit the ground AFTER he reached it out. In other words,a still shot should show him reaching the ball out in the air a fraction of a second BEFORE the ball hit the ground.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 12, 2015 06:38
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
Sure,falling down doesn't constitute a football move but,like you say,the football move was reaching the ball out.
I guess where we disagree is that I believe that the ball hit the ground AFTER he reached it out. In other words,a still shot should show him reaching the ball out in the air a fraction of a second BEFORE the ball hit the ground.
i think it was after he reached but before he was down and thats the issue. the ball came loose during his football move
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Winning Ugly VXII
()
Date: January 12, 2015 06:46
I just don't agree. I think that once he reached the ball out,the football move had been made and therefore possession was,or should have been established.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: January 12, 2015 08:59
Quote
Winning Ugly VXII
I just don't agree. I think that once he reached the ball out,the football move had been made and therefore possession was,or should have been established.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
Yes I saw the move toward the goal with the ball, you might be right on this one. The effort he made to retain possession after the ball got loose was also great. I'm now thoroughly unconvinced about it.
The "if he had reached out further" part is particularly troubling. How much further does he have to reach except to the goal line?
But, if he is reaching during the process of the catch/fall it seems to be nullified since the process wasn't complete.
peace
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 12, 2015 09:29
Quote
NaturalustQuote
Winning Ugly VXII
I just don't agree. I think that once he reached the ball out,the football move had been made and therefore possession was,or should have been established.
The head of officiating even went as far as to say that had he reached out further with the ball OR with 2 hands on the ball,they would have or should have ruled it the other way. However,there is no such language in the rule book which specifically requires either of his two conditions or that a short reach with 1 hand is not enough.
Yes I saw the move toward the goal with the ball, you might be right on this one. The effort he made to retain possession after the ball got loose was also great. I'm now thoroughly unconvinced about it.
The "if he had reached out further" part is particularly troubling. How much further does he have to reach except to the goal line?
But, if he is reaching during the process of the catch/fall it seems to be nullified since the process wasn't complete.
peace
thats what they are saying. by the time dez appeared to have control of the ball he was reaching out, which was his football move and part of the catch process. the ball hit the ground and popped up before he was down so the catch process which was also in this case his football move were never completed
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
Chris Fountain
()
Date: January 12, 2015 11:20
The Pack kicked Duke's Ass fair and square. if officiating is a concern, look how many teams have been screwed in Cameron.
Re: OT: NFL 2014
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: January 12, 2015 12:10
Quote
Chris Fountain
The Pack kicked Duke's Ass fair and square. if officiating is a concern, look how many teams have been screwed in Cameron.
duke had a season high 7 offensive fouls. come on now who can actually commit 7 offensive fouls. so about 1/3 of dukes fouls were offensive. there were even fans of other teams posting on espn's forums saying they hate duke but nc states defense appears to be just falling down and hoping they call an offensive foul. of course there were the people also saying between duke and louisville guards, wake forrests center and nc states entire team the ACC has to lead the country in flopping.
also an issue i've seen all year in pretty much every college bball i've watched this year. shorter player gets a rebound over a taller player most of the time they let it go. taller player gets a rebound over a shorter player they always call it over the back. they called over the back 3 times on duke for this when it wasn't and once on nc state when it wasn't. add to that dukes "goaltend" on a block. once a defensive player contacts the ball on a shot the ball is considered blocked and loose. okafor blocked a shot that still traveled towards the basket because he barely touched the ball. after that jefferson touched the ball and they called goaltend which is clearly wasn't
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-01-12 12:12 by keefriffhard4life.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Amarant , ChrisL , hj3009 , Irix , keefriffhards , kkhoranstoned , MingSubu , O2 , Paddy , sonnystitt , StonyRoad , Topi , werther2003 , yorkshirestone
Guests:
1801
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10